Soviet Anti-StuG Tactics

Подписаться 183 тыс.

Просмотров 124 тыс.

50% 1

A look at Soviet guidelines to fight German assault guns (Sturmgeschütze) generally called “StuGs”. Based on guidelines from the Soviet Artillery Journal Issue from May/June 1943. This video also gives some context on how the Soviets perceived German assault guns during the Second World War.
Check out the Stuka - The Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber Book campaign here: stukabook.com
Original Cover Image: flickr.com/photos/92487715@N0... by
Robert Linsdell from St. Andrews, Canada, at anadian War Museum, Vimy Pl, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. It is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Modification of the Cover Image by vonKickass.
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen, Nr. 10, April 1944. Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen Vorschriftenstelle: Germany, 1944.
Töppel, Roman: Kursk 1943: the greatest battle of the Second World War. Helion & Company: Warwick, UK, 2018.
Searle, Alaric: Armoured Warfare: A Military, Political and Global History. Bloomsbury Academic, An Imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc: London, UK, 2017.
Zamulin, V.N.: The Battle of Kursk: Controversial & Neglected Aspects. Helion & Company Limited: Solihull, West Midlands, UK, 2017.
Zetterling, Niklas: Frankson, Anders: Kursk 1943: A Statistical Analysis. Frank Cass: London, UK, 2000.
Glantz, David M.: Colossus reborn: the Red Army at war: 1941-1943. University Press of Kansas: Kansas, 2005.
Zaloga, Steve: SU-76 Assault Gun. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2019.
Glantz, David M.; Orenstein, Harold S.: The Battle for Kursk, 1943: The Soviet General Staff Study. Frank Cass: London, UK ; Portland, Oregon, USA, 1999.
Dunn, Walter S.: Hitler’s Nemesis: The Red Army, 1930-45. Stackpole Books: Mechanicsburg, PA, 2009.
Soviet Documents on the Use of War Experience: Volume III: Military Operations 1941 and 1942. translated by Orenstein, Harold S. Routledge: London, UK, 2016.
Soviet Documents on the Use of War Experience: Volume I: The Initial Period of War 1941. translated by Orenstein, Harold S. Routledge: London, UK, 2015.
TsAMO: F. 500, Op. 12480, D. 137: Sturmgeschütz-Schule Lehrstab: Merkblatt - Die Geschützbedienung, Burg b. M., Oktober 1943.
wwii.germandocsinrussia.org/de...
Pöhlmann, Markus: Der Panzer und die Mechanisierung des Krieges: Eine deutsche Geschichte 1890 bis 1945. Ferdinand Schöningh: Paderborn, 2016.
Spielberger, Walter; Doyle, Hilary Lous: Sturmgeschütze: Entwicklung und Fertigung der sPak. Motorbuch Verlag: 2014.
#Sturmgeschütz,#SovietAntiStugTactics,#WW2

Опубликовано:

1 авг 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 271

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized 3 года назад

Check out the Stuka - The Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber Book campaign here: stukabook.com

@MilitaryAviationHistory 3 года назад

What he said!

@ALMdawgfan 3 года назад

Great content as usual!

@vladimpaler3498 3 года назад

Thank you, that was very informative. The USSR clearly was aware of this vehicles effectiveness and had studied it carefully, down to the tactics, including resupply in the field. By 1943 the Red Army must have also understood how vulnerable the armor was without soldiers. I would guess by this point in the war they had not been able to study the Stug tactics in retreat or defense? Only attack. It would be interesting to see the manual in late '44.

@nicolasheung441 3 года назад

I do remember seeing a surviving SU-76i (a rearmed StuG with a 76.2mm tank gun) in the Victory Park of Moscow. They sure studied the StuG through and through.

@messinberver4683 3 года назад

@@nicolasheung441 Correction: The SU-76i was not derived from the StuG III, but rather from the Panzer III hull.

@Able542 3 года назад

@@messinberver4683 Impossible. Nothing but a StuG could handle the sheer power of the 76.2mm gun. Believe it from me, an incredibly ignorant shitposter.

@yeetboiiiiii2488 3 года назад

@@Able542 you do know that stug = Pz3 with Thicc gun?

@Able542 3 года назад

@@yeetboiiiiii2488 That's a popular misconception among historians, mechanics, curators, and experts, so I can see how you think that.

@HistoryOfRevolutions 3 года назад

Ivan Turganev once wrote: "Forward while you can, but if your strength fails you, sit down near the road and gaze without anger or envy at those who pass by. They don't have far to go, either"

@raylast3873 8 месяцев назад

Berlin isn’t far at all.

@robertmills8640 3 года назад

Maybe the Soviets considered all gun armed,non-tanks such as the various Marders as assault guns. Much more vulnerable to various attacks than a stug.

@lewcrowley3710 2 года назад

Maybe not.

@stalkingtiger777 3 года назад

Can't wait for your book

@looinrims 3 года назад

“Orders, Commissar?” “Boog the StuG”

@Scientist118 3 года назад

I got an argument regarding anti-tank tactics by the Soviets and this video's timing is perfect. Good stuff to see.

@Parkourboy86 3 года назад

What kind of conversations are you having

@Easy-Eight 3 года назад

The speaker does not know the difference between a time delay and a time fuse. If you see a target the time shell is set to explode 20 meters over it. The air-burst artillery shrapnel cuts down people around the vehicle.

@anotherfriendlyshikikan6960 3 года назад

But did you win?

@snugglecity3500 3 года назад

@@Parkourboy86 its quite easy to get into converstions like that.

@stann.4443 2 года назад

@@Parkourboy86 one conversation of cultured people

@eshelly4577 3 года назад

My Opa was in the 8th Panzer Division as a panzerjager. He started with a towed PAK. Went to the Marder..Then got the Panzerjager 4. L/70. He loved that gun..they would tuck it along the flanks. He said it was so low it was hard to spot..

@lewcrowley3710 2 года назад

What was his name? Issue of that L70 is well known BTW.

@jimmylight4866 2 года назад

L/70 was lethal.

@00yiggdrasill00 3 года назад

I love that you have done enough material that you can use it as a reference for us to get more detail on particular parts.

@88porpoise 3 года назад

With the reference to timed fuzes, are you sure they mean time delayed impact fuses and not fuzes timed to detonate as airbursts? I don't know if that type of fuses were used by the Soviets at that time (although the concept was over a century old by then). The combination of shells detonating on impact to hit the vehicles and airbursts to spray fragments on the infantry makes sense.

@tokencivilian8507 3 года назад

^^^ - this question. SY beat me to it. Airburst artillery is devastating to soft targets in the open.

@peterstickney7608 3 года назад

I was wondering the same thing - my files show that among the fuze options for the ZIS-3 gun's projectiles, in addition to "normal" Impact and Impact Delay fuzes, there was a Point Detonating/Timed Fuze as well. These would, hopefully fire when the timer's pyrotechnic train hit its set velue, or, if something got in the way, on impact. HE and airburst artillery would make being outside the Stug very dangerous - stripping away the Stug's supporting units.

@SlavicCelery 3 года назад

Indeed, I assumed the timed fuse is for airburst. It makes sense to use those in conjunction with impact fuses. As standard shrapnel isn't effective against vehicles.

@jamesbparkin740 3 года назад

@@tokencivilian8507 Likewise It was only the Western Allies who had proximity fuses to do that with little calculation.

@uegvdczuVF 3 года назад

Timed fuses were available to every major power even in WW1. And i don't mean post impact time delay.

@infoscholar5221 3 года назад

This is a most excellent channel for in-depth WWII analysis. I'm pleased to have found you. Sehr gute Fakten und Analysen.

@stevewright4576 3 года назад

Your accent is wonderful! It makes me feel more engaged with the topic. I appreciate the in depth analyze of the Stug, awesome vehicle obviously feared by Soviets!

@chrislarrabee374 3 года назад

An informative article--thank you for providing it. One comment, though, speaking as an artillery officer: when the Soviet translation refers to engaging Stugs with a combination of HE and time fused rounds, I think what might be intended for is a mix of PD (point detonation, or impact fused) HE rounds--which might penetrate or immobilize a Stug with a direct hit or near miss--and time fused (NOT time-delay) HE rounds set for aerial burst--which would force the Stugs to button up (decreasing effectiveness) and cause casualties among accompanying infantry and engineers. Artillery is still trained to engage armor with direct fire HE rounds if the threat is too close for the guns to safely displace, but not something to be warmly anticipated.

@daves2520 3 года назад

I really enjoy your channel - thank you for the content.

@Bendejo301 3 года назад

Love it, brother! Keep the good stuff coming!

@ElHombreGato 3 года назад

OMG thank you RU-vid for recommending this video. I Absolutely LOVE your other channel and have wondered what you looked like for so long lol! Now I know lol

@MGB-learning 3 года назад

Outstanding video and presentation.

@mattw785 3 года назад

These vids are great! please keep up!

@georgeferguson7114 3 года назад

Nice one! Good to see the thinking behind the action.

@ww2hungary827 3 года назад

0:50. Along similar lines, the Soviets enacted order No. 0528 on 1 July 1942 offering 'bonuses' to those tank crews which managed to destroy enemy tanks. The commander and gunner would receive 500 Rubles while the rest of the crew would receive 200.

@michimatsch5862 3 года назад

6:12 They are not dug in but StuG in.

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized 3 года назад

lol

@michimatsch5862 3 года назад

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized I clearly watched too much Rangroo.

@frankgulla2335 3 года назад

Very informative and thoughtful.

@UnintentionalSubmarine 3 года назад

Something I have long wondered about, is the reverse angled plate on the back some of the StuG IIIs' casemates. Now, I can speculate on why that is, but it is just that, speculation. Is there perhaps some information somewhere that explains this to a relatively certain degree? Or perhaps this might be worth a sub-point of another StuG video in the future?

@Ocker3 3 года назад

Such high quality content :)

@terruwuism 3 года назад

Maybe timed delayed fuzes are meant to riccochet of the StuG itself, to effect any accompanying Infantry, beside and especially behind it. In this case, if hit in the front, the angled front of the stug would make russian delayed impact shells expolde a bit above and behind the vehicle, thus clearing infantry seeking shelter behind it.

@michaelwilliamson1392 3 года назад

I believe that the time fused weapons were not delayed detonation after impact, but rather the timer was from firing in order to result in an airburst. This was to increase the effect of shrapnel against troops in the open, and also against vehicles with no or limited top protection. The introduction of the proximity fuse (also known as the variable-time, or VT fuse) allowed for much more effective use of this tactic. Edit - as noted already by previous posters.

@chrislarrabee374 3 года назад

An edit to my previous comment. Ricochet fire (deliberately bouncing rounds off the ground) apparently was a tactic known and used to some greater/lesser extent by tank/artillery crews of Germany, the USSR, the UK, and the US. In the artillery's case, the object normally is to fire a delayed PD fused round hoping that the bounce will activate the fuse and achieve an air burst. This tactic reasonably could be used to make up for a shortage of time fuses, but would be completely unnecessary were time fuses or the later US developed proximity fuses available. There are accounts in the literature of tanks employing this firing method against protected soft targets (such as trenches), but this would seem the exception due to the skill and ground characteristics required for such high velocity, low trajectory fire. I am intrigued and will conduct further research.

@sparkieT88 3 года назад

Oh a new stug life video

@pauln2661 3 года назад

As a Guess, Time Delay fuse. Breaking up the soil in front of the Assault guns. As you note, this can get a AG stuck or cause one to throw a track. Another thing, this causes the AGs to drive around shell craters, having a dual effect of exposing the thinner side armor, and the Stug is unable to keep aim on a target (bunker).

@chuckcrosby8045 3 года назад

I believe the confusion results from a language translation issue and artillery fuse unfamiliarity with the host. The German manual recommends a mix of HE and time fused rounds. The time fused rounds are meant to explode about 10 meters prior to impact, so they shower the Infantry below with a wide pattern of shrapnel. They are different from time delay, which would act as the host describes. The time fuse alternating with HE would affect both Infantry and armored vehicles. Overall, the host does a really good job, so I commend him for this video.

@velcro8223 2 года назад

A time fuse probably refers to a fuse started on firing. Ie. a shrapnel round. I don't believe time delay would refer to delay from impact. This means the combination of time delay and impact is probably meant to be anti-infantry and anti armor.

@billskinner623 3 года назад

Air bursts are very effective against troops in the open, Also, assault guns were more than just the StuG III and IV. Most of the German assault guns were repurposed open topped tanks. And air burst over one of those would very effective.

@NaturalLanguageLearning 3 года назад

Those are Panzerjäger, not assault guns. Different branch, name and mission. And the Stugs/Stuhs were by far the most numerous turretless armoured fighting vehicles of the Wehrmacht.

@tanfosbery1153 2 года назад

I think you're assumption regarding time delay shells occasionally penetrating the thin roof armour may be correct as I seem to recall American Shermans in the Pacific were using HE against Japanese tanks as normal AP was often passing straight through both sides of the tank with little noticeable effect

@AL3NOD1 3 года назад

The Stug Is one of the German tanks that excelled in both Quantity and Quality and that is one of the reasons I love it.

@michimatsch5862 3 года назад

Ptrs go pew lol.

@narodwpsanialy1940 3 года назад

@@michimatsch5862 Sideskirts go boing lol.

@chudthug 3 года назад

Also look cool 👍

@cnlbenmc 3 года назад

Except it ain't a tank...

@michimatsch5862 3 года назад

@@cnlbenmc We all know that, but it was used similarly to a tank.

@catified2081 3 года назад

Maybe the combo was used to kill the experienced crew and not just take out the stug?

@JohanKlein 2 года назад

Considering time delayed-fuses is it possible that it is said about the so-called "cavity armour-piercing projectiles" which are initiated by the armour and, when the penetration is achieved, explode inside the vehicle killing the crew like a grenade? Upd. For ZiS-3 БР-350А and БР-350Б were such rounds.

@HeilAmarth 2 года назад

Even these days, if you'd hit a modern tank with a 155mm HE round (43.2 kg or 95 lbs) the tank will be seriously damaged or knocked out by sheer volume of the blast, with every living thing in close proximity killed. That is, if you can score a direct hit on a modern tank, which is whole different story. Smaller calibers probably did the job for 2 WW era tanks, especially for turretless tanks that preferred to shoot while stationary.

@Chiller01 3 года назад

I’ve wondered if I’d rather have been a German tank crewman or a Stug crewman. I have no idea what the actual survivability stats are but the low profile and maneuverability make the Stug look attractive.

@edi9892 3 года назад

Plus, they were either fire support from further back, or ambushing enemies. In these roles you'd be much safer than in an advancing tank... A minor aspect is that tanks often take longer to evacuate due to the turret height and the position of the barrel.

@brokeandtired 3 года назад

Its a German vehicle....even if you survived you faced a miserable post war. Also the Nazis used up their divisions till they were bled to death.....You didn't get to retire after you served a tour. You shouldn't have wanted to be in the German army full stop....Given a choice I would take a trip to Mexico in 1938 or earlier.

@edi9892 3 года назад

@@brokeandtired My grandfather narrowly escaped Stalingrad by getting shot in the outskirts and sent back home... I really liked this guy, but he was a complete opportunist. If he had the money he would have done that, but like many people at the time, he was piss poor. Joining the army was the only thing that allowed him to get any education!

@gwtpictgwtpict4214 3 года назад

@@edi9892 Shot in the outskirts? Sounds painful.

@edi9892 3 года назад

@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 He was shot in the chest on the outskirts of the city. LOL This was not his worst injury though. He was sent to Normandie when he recovered and had a bomb dropped next to him. I have no idea how he made it out of there alive! He was knocked over by the blast and had multiple wounds from shrapnel and he continued fighting! He later saw an opportunity to surrender to a British unit and they actually sent him to a field hospital. They removed most of the metal pieces, but even later doctors failed to remove a metal piece from his brain. He lived with it for over 70 years.

@user-tc9sk4ei9y 3 года назад

Actually, as far as I know, any armoured target was intended to be fired at with a fuse set to delay. Probably delayed detonation causes more damage to armored targets in general

@lewcrowley3710 2 года назад

Actually...no

@ErokLobotomist 3 года назад

Now we need a video of German Tactics for fighting the SU-76i and the SG-122 lol

@alexkudov7669 8 месяцев назад

The main way to protect tanks was to move in ravines. Half of the veterans in the USSR talk about the factors of tank survival: ravines, speed and fire. There are a lot of ravines in the European part of Russia. 53-OF-350 fuse has two positions - "O" fragmentation and "F" high explosive. In the "F" position, it penetrates 2 meters of soil and should hit targets well in ravines. By the way, high-explosive fuse is better for destroying tracks. German and Soviet gunners often shot down the tracks, conducted disturbing fire on damaged targets and then finished off them. Although I would pay attention to the 53-Sh-354 shrapnel, but I will have to change the tip all the time.

@54032Zepol 3 года назад

You don't choose the stug life , the stug life chooses you

@BigboiiTone 3 года назад

No one here has made that joke before including the poster my mind is blown!

@54032Zepol 3 года назад

@@BigboiiTone wow I couldn't swore i saw this on some reddit forum

@BigboiiTone 3 года назад

@@54032Zepol could be brother

@Gorilla_Jones 2 года назад

@@BigboiiTone shaddup

@BigboiiTone 2 года назад

@@Gorilla_Jones no u

@fazole 2 года назад

I listened to Guderian's memoirs and he claimed he pushed hard for the manufacture of more P-IVs and tank destroyers, which led to the Hetzer being invented it sounds like. So the "assault gun" became a defense gun. He also wanted them under the control of the Panzer Corps and not the Artillery like assault guns were.

@davidlarge8894 3 года назад

Was the superstructure of the Stug bolted or welded to the chassis as I have seen photos of Stugs with the superstructure blown off more or less in one piece.

@jimmylight4866 2 года назад

Bolted

@pascoett 3 года назад

How much heat, smoke and debris can be expected from artillery shellfire shot above a tank? Also, I think indirect fire may hit adjacent panzer grenadiers or other, light vehicles in the vicinity of a larger object such as a tank. If the Tigerfibel existed in a similar form for other tanks, all German tank crews must have been well aware about the value of their machines. The vast numbers of tanks being in repair might give us a hint, that German tank crews might have been more careful from 1943 onwards even with much better machines than the Panzer IV.

@cheesewedge3015 3 года назад

Small little fact: the thumbnail is a destroyed stug from the Canadian war museum and dam that hole is big

@shanevanorder2644 3 года назад

Maybe the delay fuses where used in the shell sticks in the ground in hope that a stug drives over when the shell explodes blow the tank to bits

@scratchy996 2 года назад

Yeah, I thought that too, like planting mines in the area of advance. But how long can you set the delay timer on the fuse to be ?

@MarvinT0606 3 года назад

as a War Thunder player, this is of great value for dealing with those camping pests

@gsonz172 3 года назад

Yeah, in War Thunder the StuG III G (and StuH 42G) have pretty tough frontal armor.

@thedevilneveraskstwice7027 2 года назад

Thanks for another video! Anyway, isn't there a AusF. margin between assault gun Stug and TD Stug? :-) Did the soviet recognize It?

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized 2 года назад

if I remember correctly - from a cut part of the script - there were almost no short-barrelled Stugs on the Eastern Front anymore at that time; in the translated document there was nothing mentioned.

@JohanKlein 2 года назад

"...additionally it gives away the position of anti-tank gun, which is generally rather unhealthy for the gun crews". Quiet an enjoyable sample of dark humour that is. Something very close to jokes Sergei Shumakov has in his videos.

@deanmarquis4325 8 месяцев назад

Could you do something on the use of Begleits.

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized 8 месяцев назад

What do you mean with "Begleits" because that word mean very much, it means something like "escort's".

@grumbazor 3 года назад

StuGs getting stucked is my new Lieblingssatz

@501Mobius 3 года назад

I'm not sure why the ZiS-3 would be excluded in this. It was used in many anti-tank situations. And it's 76.2mm shell would have better HE and frag than the 57mm and 45mm anti-tank guns.

@jameslayton1560 3 года назад

It is mentioned right? Near the start?

@501Mobius 3 года назад

@@jameslayton1560 It's mentioned but it isn't considered an AT gun. But, Russians did use it on some AT testing.

@paganshredhead599 3 года назад

@@501Mobius It's not considered an AT gun BC it wasn't an AT gun, just as the German Flak 88 wasn't considered an AT gun, BC it wasn't an AT gun. Being used in that role doesn't make it one. You need to listen better.

@501Mobius 3 года назад

@@paganshredhead599 You ought to think better.

@88porpoise 3 года назад

@@501Mobius It wasn't an AT gun doesn't mean it wasn't used as an AT gun, it absolutely was and quite effectively. Similarly the British equivalent, the 25-pounder, proved quite adept at at destroying tanks when it needed to but is not an AT gun. And the US 105mm was absolutely capable of it although I don't know if it ever was used that way.

@dlifedt 3 года назад

My grandpa, in winter 45: rolled his zis3 from behind house, took it out with 1 shot. (Prolly wouldn’t have gotten a second)

@ThatZenoGuy 2 года назад

Put ads at the end of the video please. Thank you.

@danielaramburo7648 2 года назад

Thank you for this video. Next week I’m going Stug hunting, this will help.

@JohnRodriguesPhotographer 3 года назад

HE will frequently kill or mission kill armored vehicles by penetrating the relatively thin armor of the roof and engine deck. Time fire kills the men in the open, including crews bailing out of disabled vehicles.

@JohnRodriguesPhotographer 3 года назад

Modern anti tank missiles take advantage of thin roof armor by performing a pop-up maneuver. Once above the target the missiles fire a downward firing shaped charge.

@razorboy251 3 года назад

Hehehehe, "At first Glantz" - I see what you did there!

@blorblor5438 3 года назад

Once a german veteran (who had to control goliaths out of a Panzer III) told me how frightening it was when they came under mortar fire. He said "Auch im Panzer sind sie da so klein mit Hut" ("Also inside of the Tank you are that small - with a hat"), while showing one or two centimeters between his thumb and index finger. Maybe shells bursting in the air rather than in the ground would even increase the demoralising and disrupting effect on the men inside the StuGs?

@petersimpson8906 3 года назад

4:38: you have assumed that the ‘time-fuse’ round mentioned in the mix of artillery shells is a delayed action point detonating fuse, and go on to discuss that does not necessarily make sense when targeting armour and infantry in the open. If the ‘time-fuse’ was actually a mechanical time delay fuse, used for air burst over troops in the open, this might make a lot more sense. Discuss!

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized 3 года назад

I don't think air-burst were particularly common in World War 2, for several reasons, timers were rather basic, e.g., see 20th July Assassination plot, they used if I remember British timers, but even those were rather imprecise. For artillery we are talking milliseconds, in WW1 if you have a mostly static front line, you can figure it, against moving targets, less so. The Western Allies in 1944/45 had some from what I know, but they were really good in that tech and their artillery game.

@petersimpson8906 3 года назад

The pencil chemical time delay detonators used in the 20th July assassination plot were never precision instruments, check out the Raid on St Nazaire (Operation Chariot), but were designed for sabotage attacks against in essence static targets where allowing sufficient time for the saboteurs to exfiltrate the area safely and without detection may be considered the time delay requirement. I am not aware of the general availability of shrapnel rounds in the Soviet artillery supply system, but they were in the inventory, see 76mm Complete Round, Fixed, Shrapnel, USh-344, USh-352, USh-353D, USh-354G, etc.

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized 3 года назад

@@petersimpson8906 from my understanding shrapnel and air burst are a bit different, shrapnel is rather old and direct fire, whereas air burst is exploding above you.

@petersimpson8906 3 года назад

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized You are quite right. I doubt that the Soviets would have wanted to complicate their supply chain with a range of munition types that might rarely use rather than focusing on straight forward HE shells. The point which I did not make very well was that there were fuzing systems available for HE airburst in the inventory. Mechanical time delay fuzes could have been supplied separate to 'standard' impact fuzed HE shells, and a de-fuze/re-fuze carried out at the gun line to achieve the desired mix of terminal effects. I am no linguist, but without access to the original Russian text to see what was actually written, rather than the German translation, my observation is little more than speculation.

@orbitalair2103 3 года назад

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Sir, I disagree, while not 'precise', airburst timers for artillery shells were developed during and after WW1. So these had to be used. I think you should research and do a video on this topic (timed artillery fuzes). I am reading that while not exactly precise it was 4 on target, 2 in the ground, and thus all airburst barrages were 'adjusted' by observers when the barrage went to Fire for Effect. BTW the ZIS3 is still being used !

@stewartorr1939 3 года назад

There appears to be confusion between time fuses and delay. time fuses explode after a certain amount of time after exiting the tube. In delay the timer goes off after hitting a hard target.allowing for greater penetration time allows for a areal burst which has a better effect on troops in the open antennae and optics

@sweetreamer5101 3 года назад

Anti-stug tactics? You cannot stop the stug. The stug is eternal. When the heat death of the universe occurs, a stug will be still be defending the fatherland. Surrender to the stug, and pray for mercy; that is the only tactic available.

@jebatevrana 3 года назад

Amen.

@juanzulu1318 3 года назад

Why does the German Generalispekteur der Panzertruppen give out instructions to fight German StuGs?

@caryblack5985 3 года назад

They translated the Soviet pamphlet on fighting stugs so the Germans would know what tactics were used by the Soviets.

@juanzulu1318 3 года назад

@@caryblack5985 i see. Thx👍

@Raven1701 3 года назад

Thanks!

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized 3 года назад

Thank you!

@camaradacomissario9641 2 года назад

I love how he pronounces German names so correctly!

@Gorilla_Jones 2 года назад

Ummmm, he’s German.

@BAD_HOBO 3 года назад

I found another pretty good Anti-StuG tactic Get a friend and a jeep and stick dynamite on the front. The more the merrier. The driver drives directly into the Stug without getting hit (most important) and the passenger detonates the explosives when close. Always, always, always shout "BATTLEFIELD!" just before detonation.

@ihatecabbage7270 3 года назад

If things were that easy in a simulation game, tanks are no match vs infantry. This feel like inconsequential as you can respawn.

@BAD_HOBO 3 года назад

@@ihatecabbage7270 In Battlefield games 5 especially unless you're surrounded by friendly infantry tanks are pretty easy targets even if youre a competent tanker.

@richard4short5 3 года назад

I have climbed onto a Stug (Imperial War Museum) they are small! In fact most of the AFV of that era are small (I am 6'2" tall)

@uegvdczuVF 3 года назад

afaik the requirement for stug was that the vehicle should not be taller than a soldier standing up.

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized 3 года назад

all tanks are "small", I was in the Merkava I/II which is generally described by everyone as a "roomy" tank, for me it was totally cramped etc. I talked to one of the guys about it and he said: "it is roomy for a tank". More here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xW8cvel5G1w.html

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized 3 года назад

I have been probably in about 10 tanks by now including the StuG III, but I still have no feeling yet what a "roomy" tank is. I was in Panthers, Sturmtiger, StuG, Panzer III, Panzer IV, (Hummel, Wespe), Wiesel, Merkava, T-55, T-34/85, etc.

@soldatnr444 3 года назад

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Have you been in an bmp? It's the definition of totally cramped

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized 3 года назад

@@soldatnr444 nope, actually not, I have been in a Marder, but that is a different beast.

@davidtihire 2 года назад

Hey, I have some constructive criticism and I mean no disrespect. You should invest in some sound reduction panels for your main place where you talk in the intro. There were some points where the echo was really loud.

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized 2 года назад

I have already some and basically you and another complained so far. Congratulations on your great hearing.

@davidtihire 2 года назад

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Thanks. Keep up the good work I really enjoy your videos!

@markdexter6338 3 года назад

Coming from the channel "Today I found out", guess I found Simon's long lost German cousin.

@frpgplayer 3 года назад

They're great when playing Panzerblitz!

@earlyriser8998 3 года назад

nice to see how the Russians documented their process to counter this threat

@peterschmidt1900 3 года назад

"Scheibe stehen" kannte ich noch gar nicht. Englische Übersetzung half. :-D

@homefront3162 3 года назад

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

@tkyap2524 3 года назад

Yes, understand the enemy and then hit it where it hurts most.

@user-YuHaoHuang 3 года назад

two years ago I saw an artillery battalion of the ROC army using M2a1 guns, even with the original US ordnance stamps in it. LMAO

@SkinnerBeeMan 3 года назад

Hot steel never gets old. The chicoms have the air tho. I think the war will be won in the air and end when nuclear weapons start flying.

@N0die 3 года назад

diese Englischen videos sind auch in ordnung

@paulwallis7586 3 года назад

That's quite a lengthy, complex, and tactically demanding character reference for the StuGs. They seem to be devoting a lot of time, work, and resources to defending against one specific type of vehicle. As for a Russian mobile anti-tank reserve, copying German tactics?

@misterbaker9728 3 года назад

Both sides of all campaigns do this. Hence after action reports. Only way to teach the upcoming soldier. Think more of how many died to get all this Information. Especially Russians. Only way they solve a problem is to kill a million people and go from the

@touristguy87 3 года назад

Interesting video, but don't forget that WW2 has been over for 80 years.

@FrostRare Год назад

“Drag the cannon over here Ivan” “You mean you want me to “drag” the ZiS 76mm artillery piece over to you?” “Yeah, whatever, come shoot the tank with it.”

@HO-bndk 3 года назад

You can condense this into. "Shoot the sh*t out of them, Tovarisch. Fling anything you have at them; H.E. with and without delay fuses and any ATk you have too."

@mt1885 3 года назад

When they invaded in 1941 - it was the beginning of the end. Can't imagine the cold -50 no food and machinery all broken down.

@Community-Action 3 года назад

STuG life ain’t eazy..

@thebigone6071 3 года назад

Bernhard is so great that he has more knowledge in his big toe than all other historians combined!

@muhdmuhaiminmuhaimin7494 3 года назад

Hi Sir, May I Know How Do I Ask post My Question so that you can answer

@kiereluurs1243 3 года назад

You just did.

@muhdmuhaiminmuhaimin7494 3 года назад

@@kiereluurs1243, I have question did Hitler restored the Imperial German Flag (German Empire)

@muhdmuhaiminmuhaimin7494 3 года назад

I don't know about that but i heard, can you clarify

@juanzulu1318 3 года назад

Funny: so the assault gun should actually be called defence gun

@tripletango 3 года назад

Me, a war thunder player: write that down, write that down

@MrJenskrappmann 2 года назад

Könntest Du bitte auf deutsch mit Untertiteln sprechen? Ist schwierig zuzuhören. Ansonsten, informativ und interessant.

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized 2 года назад

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ti6Vwt04sWw.html

@Easy-Eight 3 года назад

Time fuse is not time delay. Time shells are airburst and designed to kill the people around the Stug. Signed, US Army Field Artillery.

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized 3 года назад

source? US Army Field Artillery from what I know was quite advanced.

@Easy-Eight 3 года назад

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized ??? I went through US Army Field Artillery school. I was the fire direction officer for Charlie Battery, 4/20th Field Artillery. Artillery is indirect fire. You said the Soviet 76mm guns were direct support. At the target's location then add 20 meters to the height of the target to hit the target with an airburst (technically the burst is high and short of the target so it's saturated with Shrapnel). The cannoneers are given the propellant charge (A 76mm cannon is not in the US Army & I'm not going to look up if it has a charge increment), type of shell, fuze setting, deflection (direction), and quadrant (angle of fire). Fuze setting for time = Time of flight. The ToF for the fuze is calculated and then verified by using a book called a Tabular Firing Table (TFT). The personnel who work gunnery in the US Army are called "13E". That's "Thirteen Echo". When a fire mission comes in the FDC (Fire Direction Control) personnel pride themselves on getting accurate data quickly to the guns. General Rule: A fire mission can be done in less than a minute. That is from when the target call comes in until the artillery shell is out of the tube. That is receipt of the voice command, calculation of the firing commands, giving the guns the firing command, the crew loading the shell, and firing.

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized 3 года назад

@@Easy-Eight "You said the Soviet 76mm guns were direct support." Nope, I said they were used in both direct and indirect fire. You seem to completely ignore that we are talking about WW2 Red Army here, so less training, different technology, likely far worse radios, more men, etc. to compare that to the US Army (non conscript) of now or even a few decades before is ridiculous. Even for WW2 artillery there seems to be a major difference between US Army and Red Army, at least that is my impression after doing this video/interview, which actually got one historian writing me and noting that I did an excellent job, since I portrayed artillery as a system not just a weapon. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mElnH-U9Q0w.html Not to mention that as a base you use a German term that I translated into English that was originally Russian...

@Easy-Eight 3 года назад

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized I'm sorry about the mis-quote. However, at 12:28 it clearly says the rounds are "time-fused". BTW, that's quite cleaver on the Soviet leadership's side. First, you knock the vehicle out with high explosives then you kill the recovery crew with air bursts. Explosive = "HE", high explosive point detonating. Time = airburst. FYI, the old M-101 105mm guns were still in the US Reserve system back up to the 1990s. Every side had timed artillery shells. Germany invented them before WWI and everybody copied them. Your videos are excellent. You just didn't understand the concept of a time artillery shell. Now you know. No disrespect on my end was intended.

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized 3 года назад

@@Easy-Eight the problem with "time-fused" is that I translated from WW2 German which was translated from WW2 Russian, so it could be wrong. I will keep it in mind in the future. From what I remember in about German WW2 artillery tactics (although it has been a while), they did not have an airburst only with the ricochet (Abpraller) as shown in the video.

@edwardjj4224 3 года назад

Stug lll even with short 75 mm main gunn in the right hands was very effective against any enemy armor equipment On the Russian Front Michael's Wittmann Stug lll engaged six Bolsheviks T -34 with great success After the combat Herr Wittmann getting awarded with Knight Cross promotion and training to become one of the best Tiger commander Just like Kurt Knispel Otto Caruss any many others Thanks for posting this video Utube God bless You all

@lewcrowley3710 2 года назад

Why can't these internet 'exspurts' differentiate that Sturmgeschutz were predominately used by the Sturmartillerie? That is, NOT the panzer units? I guess WOTs has to blame for much of this misconceptions?

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized 2 года назад

> Why can't these internet 'exspurts' differentiate that Sturmgeschutz were predominately used by the Sturmartillerie? Are you referring to me? If so, how do you come to that "interesting" and wrong assumption? Here is a video from 2016 about the Sturmartillerie: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tFXZcC1xZnI.html Also late-war Stugs were used in Panzer-Units as well.

@Carlton-B 3 года назад

So, to take out a Stug, you need reserve battalions of artillery, antitank guns, mortars, anti-tank rifles, machine guns, submachine guns, and grenades.

@scratchy996 2 года назад

Quantity was never a problem for the Red Army.

@machinegunpreacher2469 2 года назад

At this point you could just leave it as "HKL" in the translation. We all know it by now and anybody who doesn't, hasn't been educated enough and needs to go back and watch older videos. :)

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized 2 года назад

No, because you can't assume anyone knows a previous video. There are people out there that don't know I have this channel.

@machinegunpreacher2469 2 года назад

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized I merely meant to indicate that they should not simply start here, but browse your entire collection to get to know you. It was a tongue-in-cheek remark.